`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`
`Civil Case No. 18-cv-00997-RM-KLM
`
`DUKE UNIVERSITY and
`ALLERGAN SALES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`SANDOZ, INC.,
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, Final Judgment is entered as follows:
`
`Plaintiffs Duke University (“Duke”) and Allergan Sales, LLC (“Allergan”) (collectively,
`
`“Plaintiffs”) alleged that Defendant Sandoz, Inc. (“Sandoz”) infringed Claim 30 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,579,270 (the “’270 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 (b) and (c) by selling its bimatoprost
`
`ophthalmic solution, 0.03% pursuant to its ANDA No. 202791 (“Sandoz Product”) in the United
`
`States, and that Sandoz’s infringement was willful.
`
`Sandoz alleged that Claim 30 of the ʼ270 patent is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103, invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112, and invalid for lack of
`
`enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`On February 22, 2023, Sandoz stipulated that its sale and offer of sale, within the United
`
`States, of its bimatoprost ophthalmic solution, 0.03% pursuant to its ANDA No. 202791 (“Sandoz
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:18-cv-00997-RM-KLM Document 323 filed 05/22/23 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 3
`
`Product”), during the term of ’270 Patent constituted infringement of claim 30 of the ’270 Patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 (b) and (c), unless that claim is found invalid. D.I. 252; see also D.I. 287.
`
`On March 27, 2023, the Court held a jury trial.
`
`On March 28, 2023, the Court granted Sandoz’s motion for judgment as a matter of law
`
`under FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a) as to Plaintiffs’ charge of willful infringement.
`
`On March 31, 2023, the jury returned its verdict.
`
`Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 58(b), the Clerk of the Court enters judgment that:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 30 of the ʼ270 patent is not invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Claim 30 is not invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`Claim 30 is not invalid for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`Final judgment is entered against Sandoz on all of Plaintiffs’ claims, except that as
`
`to willful infringement, final judgment is entered against Plaintiffs.
`
`5.
`
`Damages are awarded to Duke in the amount of $1,227,172 and to Allergan in the
`
`amount of $37,772,828.
`
`6.
`
`Consistent with the parties’ agreement, Plaintiffs are awarded prejudgment interest
`
`at the weighted average prime rate for the period starting July 1, 2017 and ending on May 8, 2023
`
`at a rate of 4.56%, compounded quarterly. As of May 8, 2023, the prejudgment interest on
`
`Allergan’s share of the judgment is $11,444,942. As of May 8, 2023, the prejudgment interest on
`
`Duke’s share of the judgment is $371,826.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs are awarded costs incurred in this action, to be taxed by the Clerk of the
`
`Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D. Colo. L.Civ.R. 54.1 and post-judgment interest
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:18-cv-00997-RM-KLM Document 323 filed 05/22/23 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 3
`
`8.
`
`The parties shall pay their own Colorado attorneys’ fees incurred in this case.
`
`Dated at Denver, Colorado this 22nd day of May, 2023.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK
`
` s/C. Pearson, Deputy Clerk
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
